| Date |
Text |
| 2016-07-22 12:02:18 | FAILED |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES. |
| | |
| | 1) THE SITE LAYOUT SHOWN ON THE PLANS IS DIFFERENT FROM |
| | THE APPROVED PLANS. THE PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT IS |
| | TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE CITY |
| | COMMISSION ON AUGUST 29, 2016. ZONING CANNOT GIVE FINAL |
| | APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT UNTIL AFTER THE COMMISSION |
| | APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 2) REPEAT COMMENT: THERE CONTINUE TO BE LIGHTS SHOWN ON |
| | THE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE |
| | ELECTRICAL SCHEDUL, EX. - ALL OF THE FX SERIES OF |
| | LIGHTS. |
| | |
| | 3) REPEAT COMMENT: LIGHTS MAY NOT BE MOUNTED IN THE |
| | TREES. THE ELECTRICAL SCHEDULE LISTS TREE TYPES F10 AND |
| | F10A AS TREE MOUNTED. |
| | |
| | 4) REPEAT COMMENT: NO PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WAS PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 5) THE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SHOWS AN F11 LIGHT TYPE |
| | THAT IS NOT LISTED ON THE ELECTRICAL SCHEDULE. IS THIS |
| | SUPPOSED TO BE THE FS2 BOLLARD LIGHT? |
| | |
| | 6) HOW TALL ARE THE BOLLARD LIGHTS? |
| | |
| | 7) WHAT DOES THE WR TYPE OF LIGHT LOOK LIKE? IT IS NOT |
| | SHOWN ON SHEET LGT 251.1. DOES ANY PART OF THE WR LIGHT |
| | EXTEND ABOVE THE WALL? |
| | |
| | 8) PROVIDE DETAILS, TO INCLUDE POLE HEIGHT, FOR THE |
| | FS21 TYPE LIGHT. |
| | |
| | 9) THE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SHOWS THE POLE PLUS FIXTURE |
| | FOR TYPE FS1 AT 16 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE ELECTRICAL |
| | SCHEDULE LISTS TYPE FS1 AS HAVING A 10 FOOT POLE WITH A |
| | 12 OVERALL HEIGHT. ALL PLANS SHALL SHOW SAME |
| | CONDITIONS. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE 12 FOOT HEIGHT WORKS |
| | BETTER WITH THE SPECIFIC TREES AND THEIR LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446. |
| | |
